I don't disagree with you, but that wasn't the point. The point was that OTs just don't have a HUGE impact on wins or losses.. at least not enough to warrant them being considered a "premium" position in the NFL today. Do they help you win? Yes. Are they as important as people make them out to be? Absolutely not.

I understand and agree with the notion that left tackles tend to be overvalued. With that said, if our only (or even biggest) requirement for labeling a position as "premium" is impact on win-loss record, then I'm not sure any position except for quarterback is a premium position. What other position has consistently improved a team's win-loss record?

I understand and agree with the notion that left tackles tend to be overvalued. With that said, if our only (or even biggest) requirement for labeling a position as "premium" is impact on win-loss record, then I'm not sure any position except for quarterback is a premium position. What other position has consistently improved a team's win-loss record?

I would argue that QB and pass rushers are still considered premium positions, but that's it.

I think that the distinction between LT and RT is fading. These days you really want two guys with a LT skillset, and maybe one of them has shorter arms or is a little bit less of the prototype so you stick him at RT.

Alex Smith will be an improvement over Cassel for the Chiefs, but so would 90% of QB's on NFL rosters. Bottom line is they should not have traded a second round pick for him. I am pretty sure we all know that. Keeping Albert, drafting Geno, and having that high second rounder would have been perfect. Everyone's already said it, you don't need to have an elite LT to win the Super Bowl. Get a QB. Frightening thing is the Chiefs already have a damn near elite LT and they are thinking about shipping him away to draft another one, to get back a pick that is lower than the one they gave away in trading for an average quarterback.

We've been talking about that for months, though. They will probably draft one of the left tackles and if I had my guess I think it will be Fisher.

Alex Smith will be an improvement over Cassel for the Chiefs, but so would 90% of QB's on NFL rosters. Bottom line is they should not have traded a second round pick for him. I am pretty sure we all know that. Keeping Albert, drafting Geno, and having that high second rounder would have been perfect. Everyone's already said it, you don't need to have an elite LT to win the Super Bowl. Get a QB. Frightening thing is the Chiefs already have a damn near elite LT and they are thinking about shipping him away to draft another one, to get back a pick that is lower than the one they gave away in trading for an average quarterback.

We've been talking about that for months, though. They will probably draft one of the left tackles and if I had my guess I think it will be Fisher.

Yeah, but picking a bad quarterback is worse than picking a good left tackle. Obviously we don't know how Geno Smith, Luke Joeckel, and Eric Fisher will turn out. With that said, it doesn't make sense to pick a quarterback you don't believe in just for the sake of taking a quarterback. Maybe Reid and Dorsey are idiots, but it's pretty clear to me that they don't think highly of this year's quarterback class and they are very impressed with the tackles. Why else would they trade a 2nd round pick for mediocre Alex Smith and then turn around and try to deal their Pro Bowl left tackle? It's easy for you to say they should take Geno Smith, if you evaluate him as a high 1st round pick. For all we know, the Chiefs' evaluation might be that Smith is the 40th best player in the draft.

Yeah, but picking a bad quarterback is worse than picking a good left tackle. Obviously we don't know how Geno Smith, Luke Joeckel, and Eric Fisher will turn out. With that said, it doesn't make sense to pick a quarterback you don't believe in just for the sake of taking a quarterback. Maybe Reid and Dorsey are idiots, but it's pretty clear to me that they don't think highly of this year's quarterback class and they are very impressed with the tackles. Why else would they trade a 2nd round pick for mediocre Alex Smith and then turn around and try to deal their Pro Bowl left tackle? It's easy for you to say they should take Geno Smith, if you evaluate him as a high 1st round pick. For all we know, the Chiefs' evaluation might be that Smith is the 40th best player in the draft.

That's what makes it a crapshoot I guess. Ask Miami, if they could go back in time would they take the "safe" pick in Jake Long or gamble on a QB that they weren't sold on in Matt Ryan? Drafting a bust QB blows but sometimes it just boils down to sacking up and realizing that it isn't an exact science and replacing a very good left tackle with someone who has the chance to be a similar player is not what is going to get you out of the cellar.

Yeah, but picking a bad quarterback is worse than picking a good left tackle. Obviously we don't know how Geno Smith, Luke Joeckel, and Eric Fisher will turn out. With that said, it doesn't make sense to pick a quarterback you don't believe in just for the sake of taking a quarterback. Maybe Reid and Dorsey are idiots, but it's pretty clear to me that they don't think highly of this year's quarterback class and they are very impressed with the tackles. Why else would they trade a 2nd round pick for mediocre Alex Smith and then turn around and try to deal their Pro Bowl left tackle? It's easy for you to say they should take Geno Smith, if you evaluate him as a high 1st round pick. For all we know, the Chiefs' evaluation might be that Smith is the 40th best player in the draft.

There's this notion out there that drafting a failing qb gets you fired, so go with the safe pick.

What they fail to realize is, not having a qb, regardless of how you failed to obtain one, gets you fired regardless. Look at 90% of the fired coaches out there, they all didn't have quarterbacks.

Your window to succeed is 3 years, regardless of whether you drafted a qb or not. So if you fail, you fail. And not having a qb leads to failure. So you might as well try to get one, instead of just la dee da ying for 3 years and getting fired anyway bc you never got a qb.

There's this notion out there that drafting a failing qb gets you fired, so go with the safe pick.

What they fail to realize is, not having a qb, regardless of how you failed to obtain one, gets you fired regardless. Look at 90% of the fired coaches out there, they all didn't have quarterbacks.

Your window to succeed is 3 years, regardless of whether you drafted a qb or not. So if you fail, you fail. And not having a qb leads to failure. So you might as well try to get one, instead of just la dee da ying for 3 years and getting fired anyway bc you never got a qb.

If Pioli got 4 years during the suckitude that was 2009-2012 (granted, they had a good 2010), then I think Reid and Dorsey can stick around at least 5 if they stay above 6-10. I think it's easy to underestimate just how far in over their heads Haley and Crennel were. Plus, I get the feeling that Clark Hunt went big with Reid (no pun intended) because he isn't planning on changing anything for a while.

If Year 1 of the Alex Smith era goes poorly, next year will be a much better year to go get that QBOTF.

Alex Smith suits Reid's type of QB to a tee. KC could easily win 9 or 10 games next year with him at QB. Will he ever win a SB, I don't think so but he got San Fran awful close.

Vito and Vidae may be correct that Alex Smith may never give the Chiefs a SB win but when your own scouting department and GM obviously believed that Geno Smith isn't even capable of winning those 9 or 10 games, why would you want to draft him?
Vito and Vidae are simply trying to put a round peg into a square hole by saying 'Maybe' Geno could be special but since the evidence is against him, after all Arizona, Buffalo and Oakland rushed to sign starting QB's, they also all had serious doubts about Geno.
What evidence does Vito or Vidae have to suggest they are correct, they really have nothing.

Alex Smith suits Reid's type of QB to a tee. KC could easily win 9 or 10 games next year with him at QB. Will he ever win a SB, I don't think so but he got San Fran awful close.

Vito and Vidae may be correct that Alex Smith may never give the Chiefs a SB win but when your own scouting department and GM obviously believed that Geno Smith isn't even capable of winning those 9 or 10 games, why would you want to draft him?
Vito and Vidae are simply trying to put a round peg into a square hole by saying 'Maybe' Geno could be special but since the evidence is against him, after all Arizona, Buffalo and Oakland rushed to sign starting QB's, they also all had serious doubts about Geno.
What evidence does Vito or Vidae have to suggest they are correct, they really have nothing.

Same goes for the left tackles, the only difference is that KC already has a proven legit left tackle. Quarterback play drives this league and they gave up a lot for a guy who has shown he probably isn't going to be anything more than mediocre ever. Why not take a shot on a guy who as a lot of talent, and if developed properly, has the chance to be the guy who is your franchise QB? They still could try to hang on to Albert and draft Geno which I don't see happening, but I think that would be the right thing for them to do even at this stage.

The bottom line is KC doesn't see Geno Smith as a franchise QB. If they did, they would take him. Why isn't anyone suggesting they draft Barkley or Nassib or Manuel if its only about position? Because they likely have a similarly low grade on all of them. Does anyone think Eric Fisher would go ahead of Andrew Luck in a million years? Of course not. But that is the huge difference between Geno Smith and Andrew Luck.

The bottom line is KC doesn't see Geno Smith as a franchise QB. If they did, they would take him. Why isn't anyone suggesting they draft Barkley or Nassib or Manuel if its only about position? Because they likely have a similarly low grade on all of them. Does anyone think Eric Fisher would go ahead of Andrew Luck in a million years? Of course not. But that is the huge difference between Geno Smith and Andrew Luck.

I don't care which one they draft. Geno gets mentioned because he's generally considered the best and is a really good fit in Reid's offense - theoretically.

I don't even care if they drafted another position, but drafting an OT is ******* stupid in their situation.

Parcells thought Jake long was a better prospect than Matt Ryan. Russel Wilson was drafted in the 3rd round.

The draft is a crap shoot. It really is gambling, but with the new CBA the costs are alot lower than before. In the prior CBA, it cost teams ~ $80 million for the # 1 pick. Now it costs ~$23 million. Top NFL QBs are now making ~$20million/yr, while top LT make ~$9million/yr. Thus if the #1 pick is a stud, the team is saving $57 million over the 4yr contract (compared to the going rate for a stud QB), or $13 million over the 4yr contract (comapred to the going rate for a stud LT).

Here is the gambling analogy. Either way you are buying a lottery ticket and the cost of the ticket is the same. Ticket 1 has a max 3.5:1 payout, while Ticket 2 has a max 1.5:1 payout.

There is a 24% (some argue 30%)chance that ticket 1 will pay out the full amount, 22% chance that it will pay out half the amount, and ~54% you get nothing. Essentially there is a 50% chance that you will make at the very least the max winnings of ticket 2. On the otherhand, Ticket 2 will pay out the full amount ~22%, pay out half (which is less than you paid for your ticket)~50%, and nothing 26% of the time.

Which ticket do you select? by the way, ticket 1 is selecting a QB, while ticket 2 is selecting a LT.